Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I am privileged to be speaking for His Majesty’s Opposition in this very important debate. I will speak to our new clauses 13 and 21 and our amendment 47, which stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. In my remarks, I will also refer to at least some of the Government’s 144 amendments; to amendment 23; and to new clause 55 regarding inquests, which has been tabled by the former Veterans Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is in his place.

We face an unusual situation this afternoon, in that we are debating a Bill that had its Second Reading more than a year ago and that has required not one but two carry-over motions just to keep it alive. Unfortunately, that is indicative of the terrible mess that the Government have got themselves into over this benighted piece of legislation, which was described by eight former four-star generals and one air chief marshal as

“a direct threat to national security.”

General the Lord Dannatt, a distinguished former Chief of the General Staff, reacted to the Bill by asking why, if it were enacted, anyone would ever consider joining the British Army in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

What I do not understand is how the right hon. Gentleman expects every single inquiry from every single family that comes to the legacy commission to start the process by proving to a Supreme Court judge that they have new and compelling evidence. Is that not a process in itself? Would that not put off hundreds of families, including armed forces families? Has he checked with any Supreme Court judge whether they think that this is an appropriate way forward?

[Mr Francois]

I have two replies. First, if “new and compelling” is such a bad phrase, why have the Government included it in one of their own amendments? Secondly, yes, it should be a high bar.

[Colum Eastwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

Just a second—I know the hon. Gentleman is keen, but let me answer the Secretary of State first.

This is the whole problem with the Bill. For years, many of our veterans have faced the sword of Damocles. They have been perennially investigated and re-investigated, often at the hands of Republican Sinn Féin—mainly for political reasons, because they want to rewrite the history of the troubles. Our wording does not stop any future investigation; it just means—

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Francois]

Hang on. It just means that we cannot keep raking over the coals again and again, unless someone provides evidence that is new and compelling. The legal test has not been chosen at random. It is based on similar examples, including in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, passed by a Conservative Government.

[Chris Bryant]

I will try again. I do not have a problem with there having to be compelling new evidence. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that is included in one of our amendments, but it will be considered much later in the process. My anxiety is that he seeks to introduce it right at the very beginning of the process: before Mrs Jones from No. 42 turns up at the legacy commission, she would have to prove to a Supreme Court judge—and, in fact, I would argue that this would make it rather difficult for the Supreme Court judge to perform their normal functions—that there is new and compelling evidence. That in itself is another legal process. The right hon. Gentleman is adding to the lawfare, not detracting from it.

[Mr Francois]

No, we are trying to prevent lawfare. That is the whole point of the new clause.

Ours is a far clearer definition than that which the Government have proposed—that evidence should be “essential”. That is a much lower bar, and, crucially, what “essential” would mean is undefined in the Bill—essential to whom? There is considerable support for our amendment within the veterans community and from those who commanded them. General Sir Peter Wall, another former Chief of the General Staff, and General Sir Nick Parker, a former commander of the UK Land Forces, argued in a recent public statement:

“We have consistently proposed a straightforward solution: a single route through which families can seek answers, but no renewed adversarial proceedings against previously investigated veterans unless genuinely new and compelling evidence has been independently established.”

Let me turn to our amendment 47. Many veterans of Op Banner, which commenced 57 years ago, are now in the autumn of their lives. Some suffer from physical ailments and some from mental health issues, including memory loss. Some issues even relate back to their service in Northern Ireland in very difficult circumstances, where they often had to act, in effect, as piggy in the middle between two warring sectarian communities. The essence of our amendment is that those factors should be taken fully into account, including the number of times that a veteran has been previously investigated, before any prosecutions are proceeded with.

Our new clause 13 is included in order to restrict resort to civil actions, lest veterans be pursued by a treble whammy combination of the legacy commission, coronial inquests and civil actions on top.

New clause 55 is tabled in the name of the former Veterans Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who famously described the Bill as not fit for purpose. As the Committee will know, he is more than capable of speaking for himself and I do not wish in any way to steal his thunder, but given the order of speeches I thought it appropriate to say something now.

The essence of new clause 55 is, as I understand it, that it would prevent the continuation of a dual-track approach under the auspices of the Bill, as any new investigations of whatever kind would have to take place under the aegis of the legacy commission. This is a very important point. We have seen, in previous years, what I have referred to before as the conveyor belt of inquests, whereby a veteran—often by now quite elderly—is subjected to a sometimes gruelling inquest. The purpose of an inquest is to establish how someone died, not to apportion guilt or blame. Nevertheless, in a number of cases, former soldiers have been subject to an unfavourable verdict at the end of an inquest, which is then used by Sinn Féin and their acolytes to attempt to forward the findings of the inquest to the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland, who then attempted to charge them. Through that process, often funded by the taxpayer via legal aid, many in the republican movement have attempted to systematically pursue veterans and place them in the dock.

[Colum Eastwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Mr Francois]

If the hon. Gentleman will just let me finish this point, then I will.

The Northern Ireland Veterans’ Commissioner, David Johnstone, recently described the process in the following stark terms in The Times. He said:

“Because the coronial system allows for appeals, judicial reviews, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and families can access legal aid, it is lawfare on steroids”.

As the Committee knows, we on the Conservative Benches are opposed to the Bill in principle. Nevertheless, we believe that it would be helpful were this amendment to be passed. Therefore, should the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak wish to press his amendment to a Division, we would certainly support him in the Lobby tonight.

[Colum Eastwood]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has talked a lot about the republican movement. Maybe it would be worth it if he took the opportunity to make it clear for those listening that not every victim of state violence was involved in the republican movement. In fact, one of the inquests he might be talking about was around the Ballymurphy massacre. Lots of people were murdered by British forces on that day. Can he make it clear that there are lots of people out there today crying out for truth and justice if possible, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the republican movement or any other organisation?

[Mr Francois]

I think, in fairness, I was very clear in my opening remarks that people were murdered by both republican and loyalist terrorists. There were men of violence on both sides who sought to kill innocent people to forward their appalling aims. I respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that even members of the republican movement have been critical of the Bill. Danny Morrison, a former Sinn Féin publicity director and one-time spokesman for Bobby Sands, told a documentary about Operation Banner in August this year:

“There’s absolutely no doubt about it that the British Government, in a way, has to protect its Veterans, because if it doesn’t now, who’s going to go and fight overseas in another conflict?”

That is a very realistic point.

With regard to the Government’s amendments—as there are 140 of them, I cannot go through them individually; you would not thank me for that, Ms Ghani—the Secretary of State sort of implied that they have support from the veterans community. I have to say that that is incorrect. Even despite his amendments, he has not achieved his aim there. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement summarised the Secretary of State’s amendments in the following words:

“Despite repeated assurances that veterans would be protected from additional prosecutions, the amendments now tabled remove those protections entirely. By reinstating Coroner’s Inquests and civil actions, the Government has reopened the very legal routes historically used to drag former soldiers and police officers back into adversarial proceedings—often decades after events were thoroughly investigated.”

On behalf of our special forces, the Special Air Service, the Special Boat Service and the Special Reconnaissance Regimental Association collectively pointed out in their public statement:

“The amendments still allow: (i) a re-investigation to commence without even the suggestion that new evidence is available; and (ii) a veteran to be compelled to participate in that investigation even if their involvement is not for purposes of obtaining new evidence—all that is required is that the investigator should consider that it is ‘essential’ to re-investigate (and a meaning of essential is not provided). This is a green light for the continued pursuit of veterans after decades have passed and where there is nothing new to learn.”

Generals Wall and Parker have reached this conclusion:

“The Government must decide whether it is prepared to protect those who served lawfully on its behalf from endless legal process. If that is its intention, it must say so unequivocally and legislate accordingly. If it is not, it should stop pretending that its amendments offer veterans meaningful protection.”

It is obvious that veterans do not support the Government’s amendments, because they are very clear in their own mind that the Bill, even amended, still provides a mechanism for pursuing them via lawfare, to the advantage of those such as Sinn Féin. The process still remains the punishment, and the ultimate outcome is still the same: the veteran ends up in the dock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

That is not what I am saying at all, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. What I am saying is that with the passage of time, undoubtedly, memories fade, material is not available, and people, unfortunately, decease. Trying to recreate reality 50 years on is extremely difficult. When you do so, you need to ensure you have a margin of error. You have to admit that what you have come up with may not actually have more than a fleeting reality with what actually happened at the time. That is all I am saying.

[Mr Francois]

The Secretary of State, in his intervention, said something very important. He gave an example of where an ICRIR investigation had brought comfort to a family. It is important that he placed that on the record. If ICRIR, established under the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, is succeeding in that sense, does it not make sense to pray in aid the old motto that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Indeed, the phrase “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is reasonable. I would say the 2023 Act was perhaps imperfect in the eyes of the lawyers and the ECHR, but I regret very much that it was set to be repealed by the incoming Government, since it was the basis of a measure that would bring solace and would also protect those who might otherwise find their collar felt—well represented today here and in other places. I think that was a mistake, if I may say. It was a mistake, but we move on. Our purpose today is to make this Bill a better Bill. I hope very much that in the other place they will pick up on many of the comments that have been made today and be able to improve it.

The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) bemoaned the fact that Committees of the whole House are basically a re-run of Second Reading debates—I think that was the essence of what he was saying—and rarely deal with the specifics, so I will touch on one or two specific amendments. But before I do so, may I make a brief comment about immunity?

The Government appear to be allergic, in bringing forward the remedial order, to the issue of immunity. Really, it is not a new concept. The Good Friday agreement itself was pretty much founded on establishing immunity. I remember it very well—I was intimately involved with the events in Northern Ireland at the time. It was through gritted teeth. It was extremely difficult for people on both sides of this great divide, but the idea of immunity was very much at the heart of the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Since then, we had Peter Hain with his 2005 Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which tried to establish immunity for one side of the divide—not for soldiers and not for police. I am very pleased that at that time the Opposition, with others, knocked that back and it was withdrawn.

In contrast, immunity in the 2023 Act was highly conditional on information being handed over that might help to deal with some of the concerns of people like Mrs Jones. It was important that that immunity was conditional. I think that is where the difference is—in the idea that we cannot give immunity. The right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) has said before that his concern was that he did not want to have immunity. I understand that; it is a noble concept. However, the fact of the matter is that 1998 was built on immunity, Peter Hain tried it in 2005 and in 2023 the immunity that was being talked about was highly conditional.

[Mr Francois]

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend again; he is making an extremely thoughtful contribution to what has been a very respectful debate all round. Conditional immunity was a fundamental principle in the 2023 legacy Act. It was based in part on the Select Committee report of 2017 and on lessons learned from the South African truth and reconciliation commission. I am very grateful to him for making it absolutely plain that the legacy Act offered only conditional immunity, adjudicated by ICRIR, in return for information, such as where one of the disappeared might have been buried. It is a very important point and I am grateful to him for making it.

[Dr Murrison]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.

When I intervened on the Secretary of State, he said that the commissioners and directors of investigation who are not from Northern Ireland and are not used to investigating matters in Northern Ireland will probably be taken from the rest of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

The second thing the veterans wanted was a reference to the operational context in which people were serving, which is important. Thirdly, they wanted to ensure that there could be no repeat either in the commission or in inquests—a lot of hon. Members seem not to have noticed this, but we are also saying that in inquests there can be no repeat of processes that have already been undergone elsewhere, unless essential. They wanted us to ensure that there could be no cold calling of veterans, and that any approach would go not to the individual but to public authorities first, so that all evidence that public authorities might have should be garnered first. They wanted us to use the term “new and compelling evidence”, which we have put precisely in the place where it makes a difference, meaning that nobody can be called as a witness unless there is compelling new evidence. They wanted us to put into statute a proper review of all the instances, and to say that we would get rid of the supposed protections that the “on the run” letters afforded, as in amendments tabled by other hon. Members.

[Mr Francois]

Briefly, it is good that the Secretary of State is prepared to entertain compelling new evidence in at least one context, but he knows as well as I do, and as well as veterans do, that in the Government’s amendment that relates to a witness but not to suspects. It still does not stop those investigations starting again, does it?

[Chris Bryant]

It does actually, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman fully understands quite how our amendment operates. Let me turn to new clause 21, which I think he thinks is key, and which we oppose for several reasons. First, it would introduce restrictions on investigations and reviews, and prosecutions of only certain groups, making it almost impossible to comply with our human rights obligations. That includes cases in which the Government have already been found by the European Court of Human Rights to have failed to discharge their obligations. The Opposition have clearly learned absolutely nothing from their own legacy Act.

Secondly, the approach to new and compelling evidence is incoherent. It is clear that to establish whether such evidence exists, an investigative process would be required, and that creates more legal process not less. That is why the Government have tabled our own workable amendment that requires the commission to consider whether new and compelling evidence exists before approaching a witness.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the Opposition new clause seeks to introduce a judge—a Supreme Court judge no less—at a wholly inappropriate point in proceedings, thereby changing long-standing principles regarding criminal proceedings that would almost certainly be rejected outright by the UK Supreme Court. I note that having asked everybody who has advocated for this new clause whether they have even approached the Supreme Court there is absolute silence from Opposition Members, because they know perfectly well that it is a completely and utterly unworkable proposal.

Fourthly, the amendment attempts to ensure that

“individual personnel acted in good faith”

unless

“the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the conduct was unlawful.”

This merely repeats what is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice process: that an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty.

[Mr Francois]

On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?